No, I'm talking about Phil's email& social media history which are clearly visible to everyone. There's no suggestion someone else did this to set him up. He owns it. He just sees it as OK. Equivalent if Krauss admitted to forcing himself on women but didn't see it as wrong.
I saw it very soon afterwards in relation to three people. You are confusing believing things from credible people with knowing them to be true, claiming them to be true & expecting society to regard them as true.
-
-
One of my friends told me she had been raped. I believed her because I know her to be mentally well & honest. I saw the fallout of it for her emotionally. I supported her. I wanted the rapist dead. There wasn't sufficient evidence to prosecute & I fantasised abt killing him.
-
I understood on a visceral level then why some people get so passionate about always believing the victim. She did herself for a while. It remains necessary to require evidence & due process to claim something to be true, Because personal conviction of truth is not enough
-
100% agree. I've had a similar experience. But that's why I wouldn't say most claims against Krauss (or Phil, from my end) *are* true; they're just credible enough to deserve taking quite seriously.
-
Well, I don't know what to say to you then. He posted the email and admitted to having written it and to knowing that Peter did not want any contact with him. He defended doing so. I don't see any grounds for claiming this has not been established to be true.
-
No, that part is clear. I mean, I lack all the earlier, more detailed (perhaps even more damning) evidence that you've pointed to in support of your criticisms of him. Sorry for being unclear.
-
You're still being unclear and I think I am going to leave it here. I have not asked anyone to believe anything for which there is not evidence in the form of Phil's own posts and admissions.
-
No, you explicitly said not to believe - apologies if I implied otherwise. I was trying to make a different point (that you pointed to hidden evidence to support your public criticism). But fair enough, and I should go too. Thanks for the very interesting discussion.
-
I did. I spoke of things that I know and that Phil knows when talking to Phil that is not visible to anyone else watching the conversation. Therefore they should not consider themselves to know it.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
No, I'm absolutely not. I'm definitely trying to distinguish between knowledge and reasonably justified belief. I think your belief, as you describe it, was perfectly justified - but not knowledge. I think the same for belief - not knowledge- about Krauss.
-
Quite possibly. People who know the victims to be trustworthy could believe them. People who know Krauss to be could believe him. One of them is wrong. This is why we need evidence.
-
We have evidence - including the fact that he's been investigated and barred from two institutions. That's quite a bit. I'm not willing to lock him up (even take him to court) on that; but I think it's enough to treat him with suspicion, or choose to avoid him.
-
There is evidence of him being investigated and barred from two institutions, yes. I believe that both of those things have happened.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.